Acted In Conspiracy With Municipal Corporation Officials: Supreme Court Asks Authorities To Take Action Against Man For Raising Commercial Structure In Prohibited Zone
The appellant had approached the Apex Court assailing the final judgment dismissing his petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a quashing petition filed by a man accused of raising a commercial structure within a prohibited zone, allegedly with the aid of conniving officials. The Apex Court noted that he acted in conspiracy with the officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured permissions.
The appellant had approached the Apex Court assailing the final judgment dismissing his petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta asserted, “Clearly thus, from the very beginning, the appellant acted in conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to establish a preemptive defence in case the illegal acts were exposed.”
Senior Advocate R. Basant represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, a building owner, was accused of hatching criminal conspiracy along with the officials of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and the architect in raising construction of a new four-storeyed commercial building by demolishing the existing building without obtaining the necessary permission from the Corporation. It was alleged that the Municipal Corporation granted the permit despite the knowledge that the internal renovation of the building could be carried out by the building owner suo moto, and no formal permission was required for the same under the Rules.
On the strength of the said permit, which was allegedly issued as a part of the conspiracy, the appellant demolished the existing building located in Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, and constructed a four-storeyed commercial building in gross violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It was found out in the enquiry that the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were prima facie made out against the appellant and the erring officials. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the quashing petition, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, the Bench noted that there was no requirement whatsoever for seeking permission to make alterations, renovations, or internal changes in an existing building. Despite that, the appellant acted in conspiracy with officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured such permission, which was nothing but a precursor to the fraudulent design of raising construction of a commercial structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of the renovation permission.
It was further noticed that after the complaint was registered against the appellant and other officials, the Vigilance Department was informed, and a stop memo was issued to the appellant, prohibiting any further construction activity. In sheer defiance of the stop memo, a four-storeyed commercial building was constructed and the appellant attempted to legitimize his fraudulent criminal actions by seeking an order for the regularization of the patently illegal construction.
“Indisputably, the construction of a commercial structure was not permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone. Hence, the application for regularization could not have been entertained. Inspite thereof, the conniving officials raised a demand for regularization presumably to give legitimacy to the conspiratorial design. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution’s case”, it added.
Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench held, “We direct that the concerned authorities shall be under an obligation to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances.”
Cause Title: G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 854)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate R. Basant, AOR Anzu. K. Varkey, Advocate Raunak Arora
Respondent: Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Anna Oommen, Anshul Saharan